Investigative reporting shows that many migrants who accepted DHS's Project Homecoming voluntary departures were promised a free flight and a $1,000 exit payment but often never received the money. Transfer failures included misdirected wires, expired or uncollected transfers, and registration errors. The program's messaging, contractor arrangements, and eligibility rules have created legal confusion and prompted concerns about coercing detained migrants.
‘They Tricked Me’: Migrants Say Promised $1,000 Project Homecoming Payments Failed or Were Mismanaged
Pedro Mena and Shanna Loulendo both agreed to voluntary departure under ‘Project Homecoming’ but never received the promised $1,000 payment.Composite: Courtesy of the Lens
Germán Pineda, 32, wanted only to return to Honduras. After his June arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), he spent four days at the Federal Plaza detention facility in Manhattan sleeping on concrete, with minimal food and no shower. He was later moved to a Brooklyn detention center where, he says, staff treated him like a criminal despite having lived in the United States for 14 years as a delivery driver. He could not call his family.
A month after his arrest, ICE agents presented him with voluntary departure paperwork. Pineda says officers told him the government would fly him home at no charge, that he would receive $1,000, and that he could return legally to the United States later. He was warned that refusing to sign would mean months more in custody and an eventual removal anyway.
Desperate, he signed on July 25, hoping the $1,000 would help him start a small business in Honduras. But he remained detained for another two months. When a wire transfer arrived in Honduras, it sat uncollected for more than 30 days and was returned to the financial services firm processing the payout. 'They deceived me,' Pineda said through an interpreter. 'It's a lie.'
Widespread Problems, Patchy Payments
Investigative reporting by The Lens and The Guardian found that some migrants who accepted voluntary departure under the Department of Homeland Security's 'Project Homecoming' did receive $1,000 payments, but many did not. Transfer failures took several forms: payments sent while migrants were still in U.S. detention, information given to the wrong recipient, transfers returned uncollected, or promises made to people who were ineligible.
In several cases, payments arrived only after journalists directly intervened with the payment processor. Others never arrived at all. Of nearly a dozen immigration lawyers and migrants interviewed, none initially knew of anyone who had been paid; two people later received the money after the news outlets contacted the financial services company handling transfers.
What Project Homecoming Promised
Under a May presidential proclamation, DHS launched Project Homecoming to encourage voluntary departures by offering a free flight home and a $1,000 'exit bonus.' The State Department redirected $250 million initially intended for refugee resettlement to fund flights and exit payments, and DHS backed a roughly $200 million international ad campaign promoting the initiative. Materials promoting the program urged migrants to register through the CBP Home app and were distributed in courthouses and detention centers.
"Some people think this is a way to get right with the law, and nothing could be further from the truth," said Jennifer Whitlock, senior policy counsel at the National Immigration Law Center.
Eligibility Confusion and Legal Risk
Program materials and DHS messaging created confusion over who qualifies. The DHS website states that a final order of removal does not preclude eligibility, but many migrants who were told they would receive the payment were ineligible because of prior removals, outstanding orders, or other legal bars. Taking the incentive can also carry immigration consequences: migrants who accept voluntary departure may face a five-year or lifetime bar on reentry unless they obtain a waiver.
Advocates raised concerns that offering the payment to detainees who lack meaningful access to legal counsel and who may be told they will otherwise remain locked up risks coercion. They also noted that courts issuing voluntary departure orders tied to promised exit bonuses may be sidestepping a legal requirement that migrants demonstrate they have funds to depart.
Contractors and Payment Processors
Payment records reviewed by reporters show that some exit bonuses were sent via Soterex Financial Services LLC, a company formed in mid-May shortly after the presidential proclamation. Public filings list William Walters, a former State Department official, as a member or manager. Walters also founded Salus Worldwide Solutions, which won a contested federal contract worth hundreds of millions to support voluntary departures. Questions remain about how contracts were awarded, which companies handle which payments, and why some transfers were mishandled or never registered.
Neither Soterex nor Salus responded to interview requests for this reporting. ICE redirected comment requests to CBP; CBP and DHS did not respond to requests for comment.
Human Consequences
The reporting documents repeated human costs: migrants detained for months, physical injuries in detention that went untreated, and hopeful plans overturned when the promised funds did not materialize. Fredis Castellón-García, 45, says he suffered a back injury in detention and was flown to El Salvador after signing voluntary departure paperwork; Western Union clerks there told him there was no payment for him. Pedro Mena found payment details for someone else. Others — like Shanna Loulendo, who returned to France — discovered they had never been registered for the program despite being told they were eligible.
Some payments were ultimately recovered after journalists intervened; others remain unresolved. Pineda eventually retrieved his transfer after contacting Soterex and plans to open a mechanic's shop in Honduras.
Why This Matters
The Project Homecoming rollout highlights gaps in government communication, oversight, and contractor transparency. For migrants and advocates, the program raises questions about informed consent, due process, and whether an incentive-based approach can fairly or lawfully target detained populations. Lawmakers, courts, and watchdogs are likely to scrutinize how funds were used and whether the program's promises matched on-the-ground practice.
